2008-04-14

Heaven or Hell

When I was about 9 years old, another 9 year old kid was telling me that if I didn't get "confirmed" (as a Christian), I would go to Hell. I didn't know what confirmation was, and I still don't, because it presumably wasn't part of the Uniting Church. I was baptised though. However, whatever disgusting stuff they are teaching Christians, I didn't want to have anything to do with it, and a few years later I was an atheist. And free. If there was a cruel sadistic god who was going to send me to Hell because I hadn't been confirmed, and with no clear instructions that I needed to do such and such or else I would face that punishment, and on top of that, no explanation of why it was so important to do that, I didn't want to have anything to do with the prick.

Fast forward 30 years.

During that 30 years I spent a lot of time figuring out who really deserved to go to Hell, and instead of waiting for something supernatural to happen to those people, get real action done to them now. Australian rapists were an obvious target. I wanted the death penalty for them, and pretty much most other criminals too. It's bad enough that I have to pay them the dole, and I don't begrudge them that, but to add insult to injury and actually harm those who provide that is beyond the pale. Elimination with extreme prejudice was the solution.

Unfortunately most Australians don't appear to care about solving crime, and just blindly vote for whoever their parents voted for. I thought that independents holding the balance of power might change that, and we actually achieved that for a short time in NSW, and I was so happy, until I wrote in to the independents and told them what we urgently needed to do to protect people, and they were even less interested than someone like the Liberal Party. Bloody hell.

So the challenge remained - how to get a bullet in the brain of every rapist in Australia. That was only one small part of the problem. More people who needed bullets in the brain were the Soviet commies enslaving both Russia and Eastern Europe. And many more. THESE were the people who needed to be sent to Hell, but since there "obviously" wasn't one, needed to get some very rough justice in this world.

So with people like Saddam, there was no question. An opportunity came up to put a bullet in his brain, and it fed perfectly into my long-standing ideology. The ideology that I couldn't get NSW independents to implement. Basically it's not much more than a worldwide extension of a law & order platform. It's a bloody obvious ideology to adopt for someone who is truly non-racist and non-nationalist. Who would have believed there were so few such people?

Moving on. Foddy asks:

"So how are you going to decide who is guilty and who is innocent? Line 235,000,000 people up against a wall ask them what they support, and then shoot those who don't agree with you? Or how will you do it? Let's have the answer."

It's taken several years, but we've finally got something sensible out of Foddy. A sensible question. A good question.

As with everything I do, I take the least worst option. From message 666 you know who I'm against. However, not even I live up to message 666 100% of the time. If it were to be implemented in the extreme, there would literally be zero people left on earth. I never suggested that being dogmatic deserved the death penalty. It's actually a human right to be dogmatic! And a human right to be racist too. And a religious bigot. If you take away people's freedom to be these things, you are basically taking away freedom. People should CHOOSE to be non-racist, after being taught that by their education system and religion and social pressure. However, at the end of the day, they can stand against all that and say "white people are arsehole exploiters of blacks" and "God damn America" if they wish to. I wouldn't want it any other way.

So? Who gets the chop then?

Simple. Those who violently resist the setting up of an education system that teaches children how bad racism, religious bigotry etc. Those who violently resist the installation of a government that allows someone to say "Mohammed was a horrible pedophile and anyone who follows Islam is both brain-dead and immoral". Those who violently resist the closing of religious institutions that advocate hatred. You can still have such speech, but it needs to be expressed in writing somewhere (like the Quran) rather than in an actual place where people physically gather. I'm not quite sure where the line should be drawn, and I'll take submissions closer to the time it would actually be submitted. I'd like people to explain why they desperately want the right to have a religious centre where they teach hatred of so-and-so otherwise they would have their own human rights violated.

Regardless, we're miles away from there at this point in history, so it's a moot point. Let's learn to crawl before we learn to fly.

So let's start with something that no-one would dispute. Killing those who violently object to a cruel dictator like Saddam being replaced by a democracy. That will allow the worst of the worst scum to come to the surface to be eliminated. ie those who are so racist, so religiously-bigotted, that they would support a rapist rather than have anything to do with a white boy protecting human rights. These are the same sort of scumbags who did 9/11, so it's an opportunity waiting to happen.

So round 1 would be doing something along those lines. And quite frankly, I want to see what happens there on its own accord before reinvading Iraq for round 2 where we start teaching them to stop be religious bigots. Round 2 may never even happen. There's a bloody good chance that freedom of speech will do everything automatically, a sort of fast-forward through the Reformation. Rounds 3 and 4 etc may not happen either. But we start with some obvious things like freeing Eastern Europe, freeing Iraq, and then reevaluate.

When it comes to Pakistan, we similarly kill all those who resist having their nukes taken away. And if 200 million people decide to pick up arms, then 200 million people will die (assuming the US military prevails, which as far as I can see from the respective OOBs, is likely to happen). And the free world becomes that much safer with 200 million of the enemy dead. That's a good thing, Foddy, for people who wish to protect the free world. It's a bad thing for your plan of worldwide fascism/socialism/anti-American/racism/terrorism to take effect, but a good thing for people like me.

So, no need for people to be put against the wall YET. It's much easier than that. Just wait for them to show up with a gun in their hand. If we still have terrorism from people, despite the fact that they have had freedom of speech forced down their throat from the day they were born, and the scientific process etc, then we may well get to a stage where people are up against the wall. If the Pakistani children are somehow going down a path, e.g. let's say there's something in their genes (which we don't know about), that makes them genetically hate any country (tribe in gene terminology) that has a name that starts and ends with A, e.g. Australia, or America, and despite careful education (which we installed by force of arms), they still use their freedom to somehow plot against the above-mentioned countries (they can't help it, it's in their genes, not their fault), then we may need to protect ourselves from these rogue genes.

If we do some experiments e.g. getting some Pakistanis alone with an American and finding out whether they attack him/her or not, so that we can identify who they are, and then we try interrogating them later to see if there is a way we can find out that from questioning (e.g. they admit that they hate Americans), then we would have a correlation between people admitting they hate America with a propensity to attack Americans, and then a strong case could be made that we simply put every Pakistani against the wall and say "do you hate America", and if he says "yes", then shoot him (or her, I'm not sexist). But you need to do the scientific test of correlation first, to show that this technique produces the results you are looking for. Or we could simply isolate these people, not allow them to have children, and let that genetic strain die out, just as smallpox did.

So long as you can make a case that this is the least worst option, ie X guilty people die saving an estimated Y innocents (similar stats can be made about rapists and future rape victims), then I'd seriously contemplate protecting those Y innocent. The X should have a chance to state their case though, explaining that the Y deaths should be tolerated because ... (they need to provide that ..., I'm not going to make up something on their behalf).

I hope that answers your question.

And I bet you the likes of Foddy huff and puff about me being a genocidal maniac, instead of acknowledging that it's pricks like them that cause those Y innocents to die, or be raped, year after year.

Because Foddy sticks up for tyrants and criminals and reserves his venom for decent Americans etc. He probably wrote that guy's "God damn America" speech. He'd probably change his mind if it was his daughter being raped by Saddam, but hypocrisy comes naturally to people like him. Like breathing.

Anyway, there's the plan, in formulation for decades, and I was not actually aware that the rest of the world didn't have a similar plan for essentially cloning Taiwan to usher in peace and prosperity at even higher levels than we already have. There's very little standing in the way of that. Only China is half-heartedly standing in the way. All that's required is for Bush or McCain to nod their head and it will be done, in short order.

Meanwhile, we have the Democrats living in their fantasy world. Literally. Where snipers snip at you while you're collecting flowers, where it's seared into your brain that you spent Christmas in Cambodia in a super-secret mission that no-one in your chain of command, or anyone else for that matter, even knew about. Or where grandma is as racist as Mr God Damn America who wants blacks to be fighting whites instead of other blacks, all part of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy", so long as you use the appropriate spin that is part and parcel of "interpreting" the bible.

And you wonder why there's a need for a second coming of Jesus to actually explain how to interpret the real message of the bible instead of using it to justify horror, whether it's encouraging blacks to attack whites, or encouraging slavery, or whether it's to encourage doing nothing while Saddam rapes women. It's 40 years in the making, but you now have the answers you need. So long as you don't try to do the usual spinning on saying "fight rapists" to mean "be a rapist", the answers are all there. The most important stuff is there anyway. The most difficult thing was getting that word "subjugate" to complete the picture of what needed to be fought against.

But trying to get humans to actually understand something that doesn't seem to be all that complicated is a whole nuther story. Even when it's explained in detail. But when you can't even get people to recognize the difference between being under sniper fire and getting flowers from children, it isn't really that bizarre.